y\&>jg  &  fetOYio  w\ i c. s 

Wtimm 


#» 

stSpi?: 

Mil  H 


HiSpK: 


hee w=v 

i^lpi 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class 


Book  Volume 


i 


Je  07-10M 


THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND  ECONOMICS 


By  WILLIAM  B.  WEEDEN 

[Reprinted  from  The  New  World  for  December,  1893] 


3  a 


vnnr> 


With  the  Compliments  of 
the  Author. 


'*fZ)x5 


& 

THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND  ECONOMICS. 


l/i 


cl 


> 


Whether  we  view  the  world  of  man  from  our  own  standing 
place,  or  from  that  of  a  recluse  like  Alexander  Selkirk  or  his 
greater  prototype  Robinson  Crusoe,  we  recognize  at  once  a  solid 
basis  for  the  human  society  and  fellowship  Aybieli  ik  the  most 
interesting  portion  of  that  worlds  The  mubh-abused  word  “  nature  ” 
affords  no  elucidation  of  human  society^  considered  as  human. 
Man  makes  his  own  footprint  on  the  earth,  treading  like  an  ani¬ 
mal,  perhaps,  but  in  no  sense  does  he  leave  the  mark  of  an  animal 
on  his  time,  as  that  time  is  recorded  through  the  changes  of  the 
earth’s  surface.  Livingstone  dropped  out  of  a  high  civilization 
and  attached  himself  to  another,  half-developed  society  in  mid- 
Africa  —  the  same  man  yet  not  the  same  social  being.  He  car¬ 
ried  with  him  the  results  of  European  life,  but  could  impart  little 
of  that  culture  to  the  society  in  which  he  found  himself  and  in 
which  his  days  were  ended. 

The  basis  of  social  life  is  neither  in  man  nor  in  things,  but  in 
the  combination  of  man  with  his  fellows,  and  in  the  use  to  which 
they  put  the  things.  The  negative  side  of  this  proposition  needs 
no  proof.  History  is  encumbered  with  the  wreck  of  institutions 
which  would  have  countervailed  this  simple  truth.  Many  systems 
of  religious  faith  have  tried  to  isolate  the  individual  and  trans¬ 
late  him  into  an  unreal  perfection.  In  our  Christian  experience 
the  more  the  monk  was  alone  the  worse  was  it  for  him  and  for 
his  system.  The  early  nuns  were  not  mothers,  but  they  took 
the  name  of  grandmothers  in  their  vain  effort  to  embody  the  ten¬ 
derness  of  family  ties  in  the  artificial  society  of  monastic  life. 

If  we  grant  that  any  true  society  must  have  things  on  which  it 
can  rest  and  put  forth  its  daily  life,  then  the  possession  of  things 
is  a  vital  part  of  the  whole  system.  All  students  are  indebted  to 
the  Duke  of  Argyll  for  the  serious  work 1  in  which  he  has  embodied 
this  important  truth.  With  great  learning  and  much  ingenious 
speculation,  he  has  attacked  the  old  theories  of  economics  and 
maintained  that  the  principle  of  possession  is  an  integral  part  of 
wealth  itself.  While  the  treatise  is  open  to  criticism  on  many 
sides,  this  great  contention  is  well  established,  that  wealth  is  weal 
and  that  its  science  absolutely  begins  in  an  analysis  of  possession. 
Matter  is  under  the  possession  of  nature,  but  wealth  is  under 
the  possession  of  man.  A  rope  is  made  of  fibres,  but  it  can  be 
1  The  Unseen  Foundations  of  Society ,  Murray,  1893,  pp.  39  et  seq. 


2 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


made  only  by  twisting.  The  twist  —  though  not  a  part  of  the 
fibre  —  becomes  an  inseparable  accompaniment,  without  which  a 
rope  would  be  impossible.  This  principle,  certain  as  it  is,  may  not 
always  be  construed  easily  at  first  sight,  and  the  neglect  of  it 
causes  much  social  misapprehension.  The  analogy  of  the  rope 
affords  a  very  good  illustration.  The  fibre  is  matter  —  not  dead 
but  inert.  When  it  is  twisted  into  thread,  and  afterwards  into  a 
rope,  there  enters  a  movement  that  readjusts  the  matter  to  higher 
purposes  and  to  higher  ends.  The  rope  is  not  completed  or 
adapted  to  its  final  uses,  until  this  movement,  this  new  impulse 
is  stayed  and  supported  by  others  of  its  kind  ;  thus  a  solid  per¬ 
manence  is  built  into  the  structure,  beginning  as  matter  and 
ending  in  a  new  organism.  • 

Any  sketch  of  society  —  democratic,  aristocratic  or  even  bar¬ 
barian —  must  embody  these  simple  characteristics  in  one  or  an¬ 
other  form.  We  are  treating  of  societies  about  which  anything 
is  known  or  can  be  reasonably  imagined.  The  new  socialism 
freely  constructs  imaginary  societies  in  which  every  fact  of  history 
is  deliberately  violated.  The  whole  relation  of  man  to  things  is 
cast  aside,  and  a  new  man 1  —  a  social  creature  with  new  instincts 

1  The  fancied  characteristics  of  this  “faultless  monster,”  though  incon¬ 
ceivable,  are  gravely  set  down.  Here,  for  instance,  is  a  fresh  and  schol¬ 
arly  treatise,  The  Labor  Movement,  by  L.  S.  Hobhouse,  of  Oxford.  He  says, 
page  13  :  “  If  society  were  able  to  control  industry  and  wealth  for  the  good 
of  its  own  members  as  a  whole,  I  imagine  that  the  only  differences  in  this  re¬ 
spect  would  be  two.  First,  it  would  be  only  the  incompetent  and  not  also  the 
idle  who  would  be  allowed  thus  to  live  on  the  surplus  products  of  other  men’s 
industry.  Idleness  would  be  regarded  as  a  social  pest,  to  be  stamped  out  like 
a  crime.  Secondly,  the  miscellaneous  selection  of  the  incompetent  for  suitable 
provision,  at  present  effected  by  birth,  fortune,  favoritism,  intrigue,  quackery, 
and  other  means,  would  be  superseded  by  a  more  scientific  adjustment.  All 
who  could  work  would  have  to  work.” 

The  practical  methods  of  controlling  industry  and  wealth  are  elsewhere 
stated,  page  79  :  “  The  profits  of  enterprise  going  to  communities  of  consumers, 
whether  in  the  form  of  cooperative  societies,  municipal  bodies,  or  the  State  ; 
while  rent  and  interest  would  go  directly  to  the  municipality  or  the  nation.”  It 
would  be  hardly  profitable  to  contest  this  line  of  argument,  if  it  were  not  a  speci¬ 
men  of  a  great  deal  of  writing  in  this  direction.  What  evidence  is  there  that 
men  and  women  when  released  from  competitive  control  and  worked  in  the  great 
community  of  the  State  will  work  better  or  be  less  prone  to  idleness  ?  Does 
not  every  experiment  in  history  prove  the  direct  opposite  ?  Compare  the 
work  of  any  individual  farmer  and  his  laborers  with  the  efforts  of  workers  for 
industrial  corporations  or  the  employees  of  the  State.  The  results  grow  stead¬ 
ily  less  as  we  ascend  in  the  larger  scale  of  communal  effort.  There  is  no 
patriotism  involved  here,  as  is  sometimes  claimed.  Persons  are  not  sacrificing 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


3 


—  is  thrust  into  being,  to  enjoy  a  new  relationship  of  things  with 
these  new  creatures.  The  oddest  feature  of  the  whole  business 
is  that  reasonable  men  and  women  welcome  such  pure  romance 
and  try  to  hug  the  delusion  that  there  is  real  humanity  in  these 
shadowy  visions.  All  this  romantic  looking  backward  doubtless 
throws  forward  the  adumbration  of  the  old  fable  of  the  Golden 
Age.  Enthusiasts  from  the  dawn  of  history  to  the  time  of  Rous¬ 
seau  busied  themselves  with  this  mischievous  fable.  Its  worst 
mischief  was  that  it  gave  something  for  nothing.  To  teach  men 
that  labor  is  in  itself  a  curse  seemed  to  be  godly  service  to  the 
gentle  dreamers  of  antiquity.  But  we  may  safely  assume  that  all 
the  wars  and  pestilences  of  these  latter  five  thousand  years  have 
done  less  harm  to  mankind  than  this  mischievous  dogma.  If 
labor  is  a  curse,  then  every  “  labor-saving  ”  invention  would  be  a 
double  curse.  For  .nothing  is  plainer  than  that  the  wants  of  man 
are  multiplied  by  every  triumph  over  matter  throrfgh  mechanism 
and  the  subjection  of  force.  If  it  be  a  curse  to  work,  then  work¬ 
ing  through  harnessed  force,  by  demon  and  demiurge,  is  a  curse 
of  an  aggravated  kind.  The  fable  of  a  Golden  Age  is  not  only 
vain,  it  is  a  chimera  of  the  worst  kind.  Science  has  interpreted 
only  a  small  portion  of  the  story  of  nature ;  but  in  that  inter¬ 
pretation  it  has  cleared  away  an  immense  thicket  of  false  and 
fictitious  ideas.  Science  may  not  be  able  to  render  all  the  ideas 
which  philosophy  establishes  or  faith  cherishes,  but  it  has  cleared 
a  ground  on  which  all  mental  action  must  place  itself  if  it  would 
appeal  to  the  human  reason.  Fact  has  not  taken  the  place  of 
fancy,  but  it  has  fixed  certain  limits  within  which  fancy  must 
confine  itself.  Principles  that  are  imagined  and  necessarily  un¬ 
proved  may  not  be  equivalent  to  fact,  but  they  must  be  agreeable 
to  fact.  Principles  that  may  be  or  ought  to  be  in  the  dreams  of 
the  most  ardent  enthusiast  are  strictly  limited  by  the  facts  that 
are.  Science  has  proven  this  for  all  eternity,  and  not  even  phi¬ 
losophy  can  contradict  it. 

I  have  said  that  whenever  man  puts  matter  into  a  new  form  of 
organization,  he  gives  it  a  certain  bent  and  direction  which  must 
have  permanence  to  result  in  stable  value.  All  the  forms  of 

self  for  a  common  principle,  but  are  seeking  worldly  goods  or  their  own  ease. 
No  Scipios  or  Washingtons  were  ever  evolved  from  commuual  workers. 

The  modern  State  has  always  found  it  impossible  to  execute  great  works 
promptly  and  economically  without  recourse  to  contract,  which  brought  in  indi¬ 
vidual  enterprise.  Matter,  whether  in  the  form  of  land,  gold  or  wheat,  re¬ 
quires  subdivision  into  many  hands  to  render  it  vital  and  reproductive.  Hence 
the  importance  of  the  Duke  of  Argyll’s  argument  for  possession. 


4  The  New  Socialism  and  Economics . 

wealth  have  this  characteristic.  A  bushel  of  wheat,  a  case  of 
biscuit,  a  dollar  readily  occur  to  the  mind,  as  representatives 
of  permanent  values.  There  are  other  economic  values,  less  tan¬ 
gible  and  not  so  easily  construed.  They  are  incorporeal,  though 
often  very  substantial.  A  copyright  of  “  Ta-ra-ra  Boom-de-ay  ” 
would  be  worth  hundreds,  possibly  thousands ;  but  a  copyright 
of  Shakespeare  would  be  worth  millions.  Society  has  tried  more 
and  more  to  keep  for  itself  the  great  immaterial  values,  and  to 
leave  to  the  economic  market  only  matter  and  the  primary  com¬ 
binations  of  matter.  The  greatest  exception  in  this  direction 
is  the  field  occupied  by  the  law  of  patents.  This  is  only  tem¬ 
porary.  An  invention  as  valuable  as  the  Bell  telephone  sooner 
or  later  loses  its  patent  right.  Society  intends  to  hold  the  final 
control  of  ideas  for  itself  and  directs  the  administration  of  law 
and  legislation  in  that  way.  The  44  good-will  ”  of  an  economic 
organization,  which  has  a  positive  economic  value,  might  be 
construed  as  a  thoroughly  incorporeal  value,  possessed  by  the 
market  and  convertible  for  the  owner.  But  this  exception  is  more 
apparent  than  actual.  44  Good-will  ”  depends  on  an  expectation  of 
immediate  service,  which  though  incorporeal  as  compared  with 
wheat,  is  not  so  in  the  sense  we  are  discussing.  If  the  New  York 
44  Herald  ”  were  to  be  suspended  for  three  years,  its  immensely 
valuable  44 good-will”  would  be  totally  lost. 

There  are  great  immaterial  values,  which  are  not  economic,  and 
owing  to  the  blessings  of  representative  government,  these  values 
are  in  possession  of  the  poorest  citizens.  The  mental  assurances 
of  faith  and  the  institutions  of  religion,  the  succession  of  the 
state,  law,  order  and  police  protection,  the  privilege  of  good 
roads,  —  all  this  immaterial  organization  of  daily  life,  has  become 
the  property  of  the  poor.  A  generation  since,  personal  liberty 
and  freedom  of  personal  action  might  have  been  included,  and 
perhaps  rendered  as  the  chief  of  these  immaterial  goods.  ‘This 
is  now  in  doubt  and  abeyance.  Labor,  now  organized  outside  the 
religious,  the  political,  and  the  old  social  forms  of  organization, 
claims  to  control  personal  freedom  toward  particular  ends,  and  to 
administer  anew  on  the  laws  of  contract.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  this  is  a  temporary  phase  of  the  social  problem.  However 
labor  may  be  adjusted  to  the  future  wants  of  society,  it  cannot 
finally  control  personal  freedom. 

I  have  consciously  avoided  the  mention  of  capital.  If  econo¬ 
mists  differ  in  defining  wealth,  they  separate  more  widely  in 
defining  capital.  In  modern  life,  credit  has  become  so  widely 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


5 


diffused  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  distinguish  it  from  capital  in 
its  economic  bearing.  I  am  not  seeking  new  economic  terms, 
but  only  such  use  of  doubtful  words  as  will  throw  light  on  the 
social  problems  which  beset  our  daily  life.  Wealth  that  could  be 
told  off  by  any  sort  of  account,  enumerated  under  any  head,  ac¬ 
cessible  or  convertible  in  any  form,  has  been  treated  as  capital 
by  all  economists.  I  propose  to  treat  capital 1  as  social  energy. 
It  is  social  force,  condensed  and  ready  for  action,  just  as  the 
force  condensed  in  the  magnet  is  ready  for  the  next  orderly  im¬ 
pulse  of  nature.  Neither  good  nor  bad  in  itself,  it  is  generally 
subjected  ethically  to  the  will  of  the  operator  who  releases  the 
energy.  All  will  agree  that  the  basis  of  society  is  in  persons, 
things  and  their  interaction  or  relative  use.  Now  there  must  be  a 
state  or  condition  in  which  these  persons  and  this  substance  — 
whether  it  be  material  or  immaterial  —  can  exist  and  can  unfold 
their  action.  To  have  a  society  in  any  civilized  sense,  we  must 
have  a  social  condition,  just  as  a  government  must  have  an  atmos¬ 
phere  of  order  and  law  for  the  exercise  of  its  functions.  The 
obverse  of  this  is  anarchy. 

This  social  condition,  the  climate  of  civilization,  deserves  more 
attention  than  it  has  received  from  either  theorists  or  thinkers.  It 
belongs  to  no  person  and  can  be  appropriated  by  no  class,  what¬ 
ever  may  be  their  rights  or  their  power.  There  is  a  pervading 
notion  that  the  immediate  producer  —  whether  he  toil  with  his 
hands  or  produce  through  the  use  of  capital  —  has  especial  rights 
and  privileges,  that  society  owes  most  to  the  mightiest  and  nearest 
worker.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth.  To  whom  do 
all  men,  strong  or  weak,  rich  or  poor,  owe  most  ?  To  the  infant ; 
and  secondly  to  the  old  woman  —  the  woman  who  is  infirm,  help¬ 
less,  deprived  of  the  control  of  that  life  in  which  she  has  lived  so 
much.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  civilization  to  thus  embody  human¬ 
ity  in  an  ideal,  and  to  subject  to  it  all  the  strength  of  Hercules, 
all  the  wealth  of  Croesus.  W e  are  not  treating  the  religious  ex¬ 
pression  of  this  principle,  but  the  common  humane  experience  of 
every  individual  and  every  society.  W e  establish  law  and  govern¬ 
ment  to  secure  life  and  goods.  Beyond  these  elementary  parts  of 
civilization,  we  maintain  the  social  atmosphere  and  condition  of 

1  To  show  the  difficulties  of  treating  capital  technically  I  would  cite  one  of 
the  most  accomplished  modern  economists,  who  finds  it  necessary  to  classify  it 
under  the  following  heads  :  “  Individual,  Trade,  Social,  Consumption,  Auxiliary, 
Potential,  Circulating  and  Fixed,  Specialized,  Personal.”  Alfred  Marshall, 
Principles  of  Economics ,  i.  126-138. 


6 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


good  living.  Though  the  production  of  things  be  important  and 
not  to  be  neglected,  the  use  of  things  is  even  more  important. 
This  use  of  things,  we  repeat,  must  be  social,  native  to  the  atmos¬ 
phere,  palpitating  with  the  life  of  the  community.  A  society 
neglecting  this  obvious  truth  fails  to  reach  its  social  end,  just  as 
surely  as  it  would  fail  in  humanity,  if  it  should  be  indifferent  to 
the  infant  or  the  old  woman. 

Hence  we  would  treat  capital  as  social  energy,  as  an  integral 
part  of  this  social  condition  and  atmosphere,  which  is  essential  to 
civilization  as  the  air  is  necessary  to  our  own  lungs.  This  princi¬ 
ple  bears  directly  on  the  disputes  of  labor  and  capital,  or  rather 
between  the  employed  and  those  who  employ  them,  and  vice  versa. 
Machines  are  in  great  demand  just  now.  In  harnessing  force  to 
the  wants  of  man  we  have  set  up  myriads  of  machines,  and  placed 
them  in  organizations  which  are  almost  as  complex  as  the  ma¬ 
chines  themselves.  Meanwhile  the  nominal  owners  are  not  as 
powerful,  socially,  as  the  men  who  serve  and  drive  these  machines. 
The  doctrine  prevails  that  the  immediate  worker  should  control 
not  only  himself  but  the  means  of  working  and  all  other  workers 
who  may  wish  to  compete  for  the  work,  that  is,  for  the  serving  of 
the  machines.  He  or  his  representatives  would  direct  in  their 
own  interest  these  great  social  organizations,  these  implements 
necessary  in  the  daily  and  hourly  movement  of  society.  A  “  griev¬ 
ance,”  whether  well  or  ill  founded,  becomes  a  new  point  of  social 
departure,  from  which  a  whole  community  can  be  turned  awry 
until  that  grievance  or  fancy  is  adjusted.  A  strike  or  lockout  fol¬ 
lows,  either  one  being  a  most  expensive  method  for  reducing  social 
disorder. 

Who  pays  for  this  cost  an,d  enormous  waste  of  social  force  ?  It 
is  a  common  notion  that  the  “  capitalist,”  —  an  alien  and  un¬ 
natural  creature  imposed  between  the  whole  community  and  labor 
represented  with  a  large  L,  —  that  this  alien  pays  out  of  his  own 
pocket  for  all  these  distorted  social  operations.  Nothing  could  be 
more  falsely  conceived.  The  “  capitalist,”  whether  rich  or  poor, 
wise  or  ignorant,  is  only  a  social  agent,  directing  and  thereby  im¬ 
proving  or  wasting  the  social  energy  I  have  attempted  to  describe. 
For  himself,  he  gets  little  at  any  time,  in  comparison  with  the 
fund  he  manages  and  dispenses.  If  he  feed  upon  nightingales’ 
tongues  and  dress  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  he  spends  a  very  small 
portion  of  the  social  stores  he  dispenses.  The  capitalist,  employer 
and  promoter  of  enterprises,  owns  even  in  a  nominal  sense  but  a 
small  part  of  the  capitalized  resources  of  any  community.  In 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


7 


our  country  small  proprietors,  farmers,  professional  men,  widows 
and  orphans,  families  with  narrow  resources,  depositors  in  savings 
banks,  seamstresses  and  the  like  are  the  chief  owners  of  capital.1 
These  classes,  making  the  great  majority  of  any  community,  are 
but  indirectly  connected  with  the  great  producing  interests.  When 
an  aggression  of  labor  or  capital  prevails,  the  resulting  cost  is 
charged  upon  these  non-resisting  members  of  society.  A  few 
capitalists  or  employers  are  ruined  in  a  revolution  of  labor  and 
employment,  but  the  class  of  employers  remains,  and  it  charges 
the  cost  of  the  revolution  upon  the  main  body,  the  non-resist¬ 
ing  mass  of  society.  There  is  no  ethical  influence  here :  this  is 
not  a  matter  of  will  or  choice,  but  of  necessary  economic  evolu¬ 
tion.  Conversely,  when  business  improves  and  social  energy  is 
better  economized,  the  great  body  of  consumers  are  benefited :  wit¬ 
ness  the  gradual  reduction  of  prices  in  the  cost  of  living  and  of 
comforts. 

Let  us  consider  anew  the  relations  of  capital  and  social  action, 
of  production  and  distribution  in  a  large  sense,  as  they  affect  the 
whole  of  society.  Economists  value  highly  “  immaterial  ”  things, 
such  as  political  security,  orderly  business,  and  conditions  of  in¬ 
dustrial  energy ;  they  construe  these  airy  somethings  into  solid 
values,  the  equivalent  of  land  and  precious  metals.  Bearing  this 
in  mind,  society  should  look  carefully  that  it  preserve  its  imma¬ 
terial  creations,  or,  as  I  have  termed  it,  the  state  or  condition  in 
which  social  development  can  get  its  best  extension  and  expres¬ 
sion.  If  Labor  grasps  control,2  not  only  of  its  own  effort,  but 

1  Very  few  comprehend  the  wide  diffusion  of  capital,  pr  know  how  the  bulk 
of  capital-  is  owned  and  held.  In  1892  the  eleven  principal  manufacturing 
corporations  of  Lowell,  Mass.,  including  cotton  and  woolen,  the  machine  shop 
and  bleachery,  aggregated  $14,950,000  in  capital.  This  was  without  surplus, 
At  the  same  time  the  seven  chief  savings  banks  of  that  city  had  $17,636,965 
in  deposits.  These  deposits  belonged  almost  entirely  to  mill  operatives  of  this 
and  the  preceding  generation.  We  may  safely  assume  that  the  capitalized 
wages  of  these  successful  industries  fully  equal  the  capital  of  the  employing 
corporations.  Dividends  have  been  disbursed  and  consumed  by  the  shareholders ; 
but  we  may  fairly  infer  that  they  were  consumed  almost  entirely,  while  a  large 
fraction  of  the  wages  was  capitalized.  The  operatives  of  Lowell  have  not 
lived  penuriously,  but  have  been  models  of  intelligence  and  self-improvement. 

2  Marshall,  Principles  of  Economics  :  “  There  is  some  misuse  of  wealth  in  all 

ranks  of  society  ;  but  speaking  generally,  we  may  say  that  every  increase  in 
the  income  of  the  working  classes  adds  to  the  fullness  and  nobility  of  human 
life  ;  because  it  is  used  chiefly  in  the  supply  of  real  wants,”  p.  181.  “  But 

there  is  a  grave  danger  that  progress  may  be  retarded  in  consequence  of  a 
common  belief  that  a  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  will  raise  wages  generally 
by  merely  making  labor  scarce,”  p.  732. 


8 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


of  the  whole  organized  resources  of  society,  then  the  state  or  con¬ 
dition  of  social  action  in  that  society  is  faulty  and  ill-regulated. 
Such  a  distorted  social  action  and  misapplication  of  social  energy 
can  be  readily  traced  in  Australasia  1  to-day.  A  new  society,  with 
great  resources  and  great  opportunities  for  labor,  falls  under  vir¬ 
tual  control  of  labor  organizations.  Wages  are  raised,  hours  are 
shortened,  and  labor  expended  on  public  works  is  concentrated 
on  the  vital  organs  of  the  community  instead  of  being  circulated 
outward,  toward  the  limbs  of  private  enterprise  and  individual 
production.  The  State  is  forced  to  lend  its  power  to  the  misdi¬ 
rected  movement.  Parties  and  politicians  bid  for  the  labor  vote ; 
loans  are  contracted  and  public  works  extended  beyond  the  needs 
of  the  community.  What  follows  ?  Credit  both  public  and  pri¬ 
vate  fails,  commercial  disasters  thicken,  and  a  partial  paralysis 
fetters  production,  in  a  country  blessed  with  fine  natural  resources 
and  the  means  of  modern  development. 

Such  work  is  a  prodigious  waste  of  social  energy.  If  it  were 
not  caused  by  ignorance  it  would  be  the  worst  wickedness.  This  is 
embezzlement  made  worse,  because  it  is  disguised.  The  laborer, 
the  servant  of  a  machine  —  or  even  of  an  inherited  social  tool 
like  a  shovel  —  assumes  that  society  must  give  him  all  he  chooses 
to  demand  for  impelling  those  machines  or  tools.  Massing  with 
his  fellows,  he  bends  political  power  to  the  will  of  this  new  form 
of  organization,  the  trade-union  in  one  or  another  shape.  Dis¬ 
order,  ruined  exchanges,  paralyzed  production,  social  loss,  follow 
these  diversions  of  social  organization,  these  misapplications  of 
social  energy.  This  plunder  and  waste  of  the  accretions  of  civil¬ 
ized  life  is  partly  caused  and  largely  increased  by  the  wrong 
dogma  above  cited,  —  the  mistaken  notion  that  the  capitalist,  or  a 
class  of  persons  called  capitalists,  pays-  for  any  experiments  and 
any  losses  the  laborer  and  organizations  of  labor  may  choose  to  im¬ 
pose  upon  society.  The  modern  capitalist-employer  —  important 
as  his  function  is  —  is  only  a  small  part  of  the  great  whole  of  so¬ 
ciety.  If  his  proper  function  be  interfered  with,  he  will  not  be 
the  only  loser.  As  the  experience  of  Australasia  shows,  his  losses 
and  those  of  his  class  are  soon  multiplied  and  levied  upon  society 
at  large.  In  the  final  extension  of  the  recoil,  the  laborer,  like 
Samson,  has  pulled  down  the  structure  which  protected  him  while 
it  protected  all  parts  of  society. 

My  contention  is,  that  the  state  and  condition  of  social  action 

1  An  interesting  and  complete  account  of  the  labor  troubles  in  Australasia 
may  be  found  in  the  weekly  London  Times,  July  28  and  August  4,  1893. 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


9 


to  which  industrial  energies  are  allied,  just  as  the  sail  joins  with 
the  breeze  or  the  piston  rod  combines  with  the  current  of  steam, 
constitutes  immaterial  wealth,  that  it  is  the  part  of  wealth  which 
has  cost  most  and  the  part  best  worth  preserving.  It  is  clear  that 
things  are  valuable  in  civilization,  but  the  use  of  things  is  yet  more 
valuable  ;  just  as  the  steam  is  worth  more  than  the  coal  whence 
it  came,  and  the  stroke  of  the  piston  is  more  valuable  than  the 
current  of  steam.  The  whole  process  and  arrangement  of  society 
grows  more  complex  with  every  stride  of  civilization.  This  com¬ 
plexity  is  the  finest  result  proceeding  from  all  the  centuries.  It  is 
the  essence  of  growth  and  of  human  development.  Yet  for  this 
reason,  it  is  more  and  more  dependent  on  order  and  upon  the  sub¬ 
jection  of  each  individual,  whether  laborer  or  capitalist,  to  the 
canons  of  social  order. 

I  have  argued  that  the  social  condition  which  admits  of  our 
present  civilization  and  which  affords  a  basis  for  the  action  of 
social  energy,  is  the  birthright  of  everybody  and  should  be  cher¬ 
ished  and  preserved  by  every  one.  This  principle  is  freely  ad¬ 
mitted  by  many  for  the  present  time  and  gainsaid  or  opposed  in 
looking  forward  to  the  future.  The  socialist  ignores  the  logic  of 
events.  Gathering  the  evils  of  civilization  into  the  focus  of  his 
vision,  he  would  change  the  orderly  sequence  of  life.  He  would 
administer  the  future  —  generally  through  some  form  of  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  State  —  in  a  new  way  for  better  results.  But  we 
can  judge  of  the  future  only  by  the  past.  All  forms  of  society, 
aristocratic  or  democratic,  despotic  or  republican,  have  recognized 
qualitative  differences  in  their  individual  members.  A  better  sol¬ 
dier  or  sailor,  inventor  or  planter,  poet  or  singer,  soon  made  an 
impression  on  those  societies  and  found  his  reward.  This  princi¬ 
ple,  if  not  rejected,  is  oppressed  by  socialism.  The  mass  of  society 
and  not  the  essential  qualities  of  its  individual  members  occupies 
the  attention  and  stimulates  the  inventive  plans  of  socialists.1 
This  is  not  the  method  of  nature,  which  improves  by  variation 
and  not  by  mere  succession  and  repetition.  The  greatest  and  best 
regulated  quantity  —  if  it  filled  the  universe  —  could  not  produce 
better  quality  without  variation.  Progress  comes  by  diffusing 

1  This  is  well  brought  out  by  Mr.  Gilman  :  “  No  more  ingenious  scheme, 
however,  than  scientific  socialism  has  ever  been  imagined  by  the  perverse  in¬ 
tellect  of  partial  thinkers  for  diminishing  the  progress  of  civilization.  The 
philosophic  thinker  is  repelled  by  the  exaggerated  emphasis  which  they  place 
on  the  material  comfort  of  the  least  successful  part  of  the  human  race.”  — - 
Socialism  and  the  American  Spirit ,  p.  342. 


10 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


quality  through  the  mass,  and  not  by  merely  increasing  the  bulk 
of  the  mass ;  and  the  qualit)7-  of  individuals,  once  attained,  be¬ 
comes  a  common  heritage.  No  one  invents  for  himself  alone. 
The  quality  pertaining  to  the  inventor,  which  was  sacred,  becomes 
common  and  human  through  the  appreciation  of  the  mass  and  not 
by  the  sluggish  weight  of  that  mass. 

This  quality  of  the  individual  man  and  woman  is  something  worth 
study  and  deep  investigation.  It  is  something  far  more  subtile 
and  delicate  than  the  old  canons  of  aristocracy  could  define.  All 
the  colleges  of  heraldry  could  not  show  the  fine  differences  exist¬ 
ing  between  man  and  man  to-day.  To  define  these  differences,  to 
secure  and  keep  them  active  and  potent,  is  an  essential  and  inevi¬ 
table  part  of  the  present  social  enigma.  Enormous  social  forces 
are  being  released  every  day ;  we  need  personal  force  and  corre¬ 
sponding  individual  men  and  women,  quite  as  much  as  we  need 
a  larger  meed  of  material  comfort  and  companies  of  laborers  to 
propel  machines.  Any  improvement  in  this  direction,  any  sug¬ 
gestion  or  novel  impulse,  is  always  welcomed  by  all  interested  in 
social  progress. 

The  socialist  has  thus  far  shown  no  method,  or  plan,  by  which 
the  quality  of  individuals  could  be  improved  or  even  sustained. 
We  may  grant  privileges  and  endow  classes  through  institutions, 
but  then  we  do  not  reach  the  centre  of  the  problem,  which  affects 
the  condition  and  future  of  each  and  every  individual  man  and 
woman.  No  better  means  for  developing  quality  and  lifting  the 
individual  has  been  so  far  practiced  or  even  discovered  than 
ownership  and  possession  of  property.  In  one  of  the  old  cere¬ 
monies  of  manumission,  the  emancipated  serf  dropped  a  coin  at 
the  feet  of  his  sovereign.  It  was  a  symbol  of  deep  significance. 
The  right  to  own  and  the  duty  of  expending  in  the  highest  cause 
were  corner-stones  of  the  old  individuality.  Have  we  found  any 
better  way  of  endowing  every  man  with  power,  of  making  every 
citizen  a  king  over  his  own  circumstance  ?  Will  free  transporta¬ 
tion  and  free  theatre  tickets  dignify  the  common  man,  like  the 
possession  of  his  own  dollar  earned  by  his  own  effort  ? 

The  common  avenue  and  certain  bridge  to  possession  and  the 
more  solid  forms  of  property  is  through  wages.  The  wage  s}rs- 
tem  has  become  more  elastic  and  easy  with  every  decade  of  prog¬ 
ress.  While  it  is  defective,  it  embodies  more  of  the  needs  of 
common  life  than  any  mode  of  organizing  labor  hitherto  tried,  or 
even  suggested.  Modified  by  cooperation  and  profit  sharing,  it 
has  great  possibilities  of  development.  In  the  newer  societies, 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics . 


11 


especially,  it  helps  to  bring  out  the  qualitative  differences  of  men 
we  have  insisted  upon.  Many  individuals  have  made  their  first 
earnings  the  vaulting  pole  by  which  they  have  gained  higher 
position  and  larger  opportunity.  I  would  not  ignore  the  evils  of 
the  present  time.  Great  material  forces  are  being  put  to  use, 
new  appetites  are  being  created,  and  in  the  inevitable  social 
changes  many  individuals  suffer.  But  the  whole  of  society  gains 
by  the  new  life,  and  in  trying  to  meliorate  the  hard  cases  of  the 
transition,  we  should  not  trifle  with  the  great  social  foundations 
of  civilization.  The  wage  system  affords  a  ready  means  for  bring¬ 
ing  all  labor  —  whatever  its  qualitative  differences  —  into  imme¬ 
diate  use  and  employment.  As  it  exists,  and  with  all  its  defects, 
it  is  a  marvel  of  development  and  organization.  If  one  knows 
something  of  its  delicate  operation  and  knows  of  the  relations  of 
employer  and  employed  as  social  life  pulsates  through  the  mech¬ 
anism  of  labor  and  wages  ;  then  one  shudders  as  shallow  theorists 
flippantly  trifle  with  the  organization  through  which  society  moves 
along  in  its  daily  work.1 

The  greatest  and  most  instructive  study  for  man  is  in  man  him¬ 
self.  I  have  tried  to  show  that  the  use  of  things  is  far  more 
important  than  the  very  thing  itself.  Possession  and  property 2 
are  bound  up  with  the  use  of  things,  as  the  twist  of  fibres  makes  a 
rope  out  of  matter  that  was  loose  and  useless.  The  vegetable 
fibre  was  afloat  in  the  wind  and  had  to  be  stayed  by  man.  This 
bent  and  twist  of  the  fibre  was  something  human,  conferred  by 
man  when  he  was  directing,  controlling,  creating.  This  creation 
belongs  to  society  as  a  whole  and  is  merely  administered  for  the 
time  by  capitalist  or  employer.  Any  interference  with  the  natural 
development  of  this  creative  force  by  either  laborer  or  capitalist, 
labor  or  capital,  must  inevitably  cause  a  great  social  waste.  Capi¬ 
tal  is  social  energy  and  cannot  be  diverted  from  the  uses  of  society 
by  any  one  class.  When  capital,  employment  or  production  is 
diverted  even  for  the  benefit  of  a  large  fraction  of  society,  —  as  it 
was  diverted  for  the  laborers  in  Australasia,  —  then  the  social 
waste  is  enormous  and  falls  on  the  whole  of  society,  including  the 
innocent  with  the  guilty.  The  cost  of  this  waste,  this  eccentric 

1  The  Daivn,  an  organ  of  the  Christian  Socialists,  says  :  “  Business  itself  to¬ 
day  is  wrong.  It  rests  upon  a  negation  of  the  social  law.  Each  man  is  for 
himself,  each  company  for  itself.  It  is  based  on  competitive  strife  for  profits. 
This  is  the  exact  opposite  of  Christianity.” 

2  “  In  attacking  private  property  the  Socialists  make  their  worst  blunder.” — 
Gilman,  Socialism  and  the  American  Spirit,  p.  3G2. 


12 


The  New  Socialism  and  Economics. 


development  of  force,  is  borne  in  largest  proportion  by  the  non¬ 
resisting  members  of  society.  When  the  power  of  the  State  is  di¬ 
rected  into  these  eccentric  channels,  when  production  is  fostered 
politically,  then  the  social  waste  becomes  worse,  as  has  been  shown 
in  France  several  times  and  as  was  shown  lately  in  Australasia. 

The  harmonious  action  of  these  great  social  forces  playing  in 
and  through  political  grooves,  depends  on  the  larger  social  condi¬ 
tion,  as  I  have  termed  it.  The  greatest  business  of  man,  as  it  is 
the  highest  work  of  nature,  is  to  vary  and  establish  the  qualitative 
differences  which  embody  improvement  and  make  progress  possi¬ 
ble.  These  qualitative  germs  are  planted  and  secured  in  indi¬ 
vidual  men  and  women.  The  social  condition  is  an  atmosphere 
widely  diffused  and  constantly  active.  To  bring  its  stimulating 
influence  into  contact  with  all  individuals,  large  and  small  alike, 
nothing  has  been  yet  discovered  so  potent  as  wages.  Whether 
the  laborer  be  a  barrister  or  a  shoveler,  he  can  honestly  earn  his 
fee  or  wage.  The  foundation  for  individual  quality  and  estab¬ 
lished  variation  is  in  possession.  Immaterial  and  immortal  life 
cannot  be  transmitted  and  maintained  without  a  visible  and  tan¬ 
gible  seed.  Out  of  possession  proceeds  creative  energy  and  the 
new  life.  We  need  not  arraign  the  new  socialism,  for  we  stand 
by  history  and  observed  facts.  It  remains  for  the  new  socialism 
to  prove  its  own  case. 


* 


